Intel Cuts Electric Cords with Wireless Power System

Hello Bricktop

It is not possible to have any variable electric field, without an associated magnetic field.

Living cells are affected by electric fields, magnetic fields, and both at the same time.

The primary critical time for cells, is during the DNA-RNA and the reverse to DNA again period, which takes time.

Cell division is a secondary critical period for cells (Most of that occurs whilst the person is asleep).

So...it's like cooking food with a Microwave oven: The makers say it's safe.

tests of the cooked food show enzymatic damage.

Thus the food is heated and damaged at the same time.

I would be steering well clear of that "wireless power transmission", absolutely, because I value my health.

The bad effects of magnetic and electric fields may often take decades to appear, by then, as with Thalidomide, Asbestos, PCB's, DDT and much more, it is too late.

Kind Regards....

No

No.

What Del the cat and PWSlack said.

Maybe we haven't welcomed these particular devices, but we have adopted cell phones, cordless phones, fluorescent lights and CRT's. All of these emit and expose us to radiated electric fields. The frequencies are somewhat higher, the power levels are somewhat lower. So what is the frequency limit? What is the power level limit?

Sounds like the same response received by that new fangled e-lec-tricity thing where they want to put e-lec-tric lights in our houses. All them wires runnin' round is pretty scary. That can't be good for you.

Sounds like you all would be more comfortable if Edison had won and we were on a DC grid. Seems to me this dead horse has been beaten enough already. Unless someone has references to a statistically relevant number of correctly done studies that definitively indicate harm results then I don't see the problem.

It's not like we aren't already awash in a sea of electromagnetic radiation. I'm more worried about the stray gamma ray which I know is harmful than I am the non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation that's all around.

rcapper said: Unless someone has references to a statistically relevant number of correctly done studies that definitively indicate harm results then I don't see the problem.

Here we go again. And what does it take to be statistically relevant? How about computerized records that clearly show fields underneath power transmission lines have a 15% lower crop yield than other fields growing the same crop. Unfortunately such records are most often held by private farmers not multi-national companies that can establish global credentials on the internet.

Sparkstation is right. There is enough evidence that magnetic fields associated with AC power lines can cause cellular damage over sucessive generations. We have also seen plenty of studies that indicate the typical office environment with flourescent lighting is not conducive to best of health by the office workes. and now they want to add to this unhealthy atmospjhere?

It just begins to sound a bit hypocritical to me. This forum is the first to challenge some wacko who claims over unity energy for hard data, as it should. But on this topic there seems to be a willingness to accept conjecture and gossip. The fact that the crop yields may be less, if indeed it is a fact and not urban legend, does not, in and of itself, point to the electric field as a cause. Further research would need to be done. Was the land effected by the process of building the towers? Does the farmer plant differently without realizing it near the towers? And on and on. All the parameters must be considered. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there is no effect nor am I saying it is insignificant but so far no one has presented a single reference to any research. They have inferred "many studies" but what studies? Which ones? Where can we find these? Were they done in an unbiased and proper scientific manner?

rcapper wrote: so far no one has presented a single reference to any research. They have inferred "many studies" but what studies? Which ones? Where can we find these? Were they done in an unbiased and proper scientific manner?

REPLY: It wasn't a research project or a study. I happen to know a farmer who cultivates many hundreds of acres to supply a large food chain. He also leases many more fields. All his production records are computerized and his planting and harvesting machinery is equipped with ground tracking radar and GPS. His operation is about as automated and computerized as any farming operation I have ever seen. It has to be to determine if leasing a particular field is profitable or not.

We just happened to be talking about farming in general and I asked him if the 220kV transmission line had any influence on his crops. He said it did. Reduction by about 15% according to his records.

This was detailed by analyzing crop yield from the land under the transmission line with adjacent land not near the power lines. He analyses all crop yeild data to determine which fields are profitable and which are not. Unfortunately the power lines crosses his home farm on land he owns instead of leases. Now he knows not to lease land near power lines due to the reduced yield he has uncovered with his record keeping. I realize you won't ever accept such data as "scientific" enough or statistically significant. Who cares! When I see stunted growth under power lines and rebust growth elsewhere I don't need to be a scientist to understand what I see with my own eyes. And if someone were to set up a test to provide "scientific data" you can bet your last dollar the power utility industry would do their darndest to discredit the results. If not with verifiable facts then by innuendu and character assassination. We have seen this happen often enough in other situations where potentially damaging fact finding would upset the apple cart for established businesses.

When a group power utility workers showed increasing instances of Leukemia, compared to the general population in the same area, the union got involved. It came as no surprise that the management of the power utility did everything to discredit the claim of the medical investigators who concluded that working in close proximity to megawatt generating equipment was the cause. Need I say more?

You have every right to accept what you see and hear as fact. I am glad you are pleased with your conclusions.

I am also glad that you allow me to keep my mind open and come to my own conclusions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method

Hi elnav,

There happens to be a whole lot of published material about the negative effects of EMF's, and you should try to get hold of the book called; "Power Watch" by Alasdair and Jean Philips! This book contains a massive amount of scientific researsh about these effects; here is the ISBN number;- ISBN 0 7499 2686 4

The last pages of this book contains the names and paper numbers etc of the researchers who contributed, it must be noted that these researchers and scientists are from all corners of the globe.

I can also tell you that the Swedish scientists are way ahead of the rest of the world in this field of research, for example; In the 1980s they forced the electricity companies to remove and replace all the electricity pylons that were within 50 meters of any dwelling, and 2 years ago they stopped all schools from using computers in the classroom that were using the wii system to keep in contact with each other!

The reasons given were the high amounts of leukemia in schools where the wii system was used!!!!!

Spencer.

Oh boy, promotional material from someone selling tin-foil hats. Ok, they're fancier than tin-foil but give me a break. Electronic "fog" meters and protective crystals. Clearly, I am in the wrong business.

This guy is a lay-person, not a scientist. Where are the references to double blind studies? Where are the credentials? And what about the fact that he sells all this silly crap to "protect" you from the things he's just scared you about? Reeks of conflict of interest, bad science, fear mongering.

But hey, if it makes you happy be the first one on your block to have a high tech tin-foil hat!

http://www.emfblues.com/CryCat.html

http://www.badscience.net/?p=418

http://www.emfields.org/screening/headnet.asp

Hi crapper,

Why don't you just shut your big mouth and give your arse a chance!

And as for tin hats, you are way of the mark, if you don't understand something you should not make disparaging remarks about what other people say about this serious discussion.

Spencer.

Thanks for the rude comments sir, you confirm my sense about where this CR4 site seems to be headed. You're a real classy guy there Spencer!

Hi rcapper,

Many thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Spencer.

Hi Bricktop,

This kind of technology can "KILL YOU", so beware!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Spencer.

Hmm

Re Nikoli Tesla! If he had been better financed you would not need a wall socket for the computer you are using, only an antenna!

Yes at certain frequencies e.m. radiation can be hazardous to humans, animals and plants but with experimentation, I believe we can find a range that is safe. We need this technology as a race. Everyone on earth should be allowed access to the benefits of electrical power. When (not if, it can and has been done) we decide to finally distribute electricity globally and without wires we will be one step closer to ending some of the misery of the human condition.

Shart4legged wrote: When (not if, it can and has been done) we decide to finally distribute electricity globally and without wires we will be one step closer to ending some of the misery of the human condition.

REPLY: Noble words, good intentions; but are you familiar with the law of inverse squares? Light and radiated power decays according to the inverse of the square of the distance. In other words, double the distance and you get one quarter the power.

Broadcasting power omni directionally so that everyone can receive it means the transmitting source has to be incredibly powerful. So powerful in fact that it will pose a hazard to living things in close proximity. The Intel proposal calls for wireless transmission inside a purposebuilt structure. These structures are usually filled with worker cubicles and acres of flourescent lighting. There is already a wealth of documented ills associated with such structures and the debilitating effects on humans. Why would you want to impose such misery on many more people.?

What we really need is a totally different approach; perhaps even a change in lifestyle.

Yeh...
and there's already a system broadcasting 500watts per square metre every day during daylight hours.
It's free too....but only when it's sunny

Del

Yeh...

and there's already a system broadcasting 500watts per square metre every day during daylight hours. It's free too....but only when it's sunny

But... but... but... it's always sunny someplace.

Not exactly encouraging is it.

Although results suggest that indeed themagnetic field may play a role in the association with leukemia risk, there is uncertainty because of small sample numbers and because of a correlation between themagnetic field and proximity to power lines (Feychtinget al. 1996).

_____________ another quote _____________

The fact that results for leukemia based on proximity of homes to power lines are relatively consistent led the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Committee to conclude that children living near power lines appear to be at increased risk of leukemia (NAS 1996).

------------------------------------------------------------------

And none of these studies have been conducted long enough to look at multi- generational effects.

I think I will pass.

Well I guess it also depends on how you read it. If you look hard enough there are numerous elements we spew into the environment that "increase risk" of any number of maladies. I would contend that we are all probably at an increased risk of cancer from the use of diesel fuel, especially in populated areas.

However, are we ready to forgo the use of diesel fuel to move our freight and heat our homes in order to eliminate any increased risk? I think not.

Everything we do, increases entropy around us, and consequently, increases some aspect of risk. Zero risk is only attained after death.

The point is to look at what the risk is and determine if it is acceptable. No one gets out alive (hope you got the memo!) and to have the things we desire, a few more of us will die a little bit sooner and some of us may die a whole lot sooner. Don't worry, we seem to be good (too good!) at just making more. We already know the end game so it is just a balancing act between what we have now and how long we have it.